(Update: this appears to be a 1950 with a 1951 front end).
We’re back in the Netherlands with another of Corey Behrens’ finds, and it’s a gem. It’s a final year Pontiac Streamliner, the end of the road for GM’s flirtations with streamlining. And it’s surprisingly late, really, to be building fastbacks in 1951; seems like that era had ended pretty quickly after the war.
There’s just one question in my mind: was this an original import in 1951, when American cars were still very popular imports, or like so many, imported later?
I’m pretty sure this is an eight, but I could be wrong. It does have the amber hood ornament that glows when the headlights are on.
That hood ornament is a classic, and has been for quite some years. They don’t make them like this anymore, and for more reason than one.
Pontiacs came with either a 239 ci flathead six, rated at 90 hp (manual) and 100 hp with the optional Hydramatic. The inline flathead eight would soldier along through 1954, making it the very last of its kind. It had 268 ci, and was rated 116/120 hp, also depending on the transmission. I ran across an old SIA comparison of two ’52 Pontiacs, one a six with manual transmission, and the other with the eight and Hydramatic. They pointed out that no less than 87% of eights came with the HM; that’s an impressively high number. And only some 23% of the sixes did, which is not surprising, given that it appealed to the thriftier crowd. The Pontiac was the lowest-cost GM car available with the HM.
That’s not to say it’s exactly fast. I found two 0-60 times for the eight with HM: 20.12 and 18.8 seconds. The HM did impose a penalty on absolute performance, due to hydraulic slippage. I also found a 0-60 time for the six with manual transmission, at a scorching 13.9 seconds, achieved by Tom McCahill, who had a rep for the fastest times thanks to his very aggressive techniques.
Of course it’s a classic GM BA-Body, meaning a Chevy with a longer front end, resulting in a 120″ wheelbase. That had been the formula since the very first Pontiac in 1926, the first instance of actual body sharing at GM. It was essentially a Chevy with a longer front end to make room for a six. And soon after Chevy got its six in 1929, Pontiac had to start offering an eight, in 1933. That inline eight was the same engine still being used in these through 1954, when it was finally replaced by the new ohv V8.
I have vivid memories of one of these, though it may have been the notchback 2 door. Some time in probably 1963 or so my mother took our 61 F-85 wagon to the Olds dealer for service. She was counting on a loaner car and they were out. A guy in coveralls said to her “I’ve got a Pontiac you can use, it’s an old one.” Mom said it was OK and off we went in the car.
I remember riding in it to pick my father up at work at the end of the day. I got to sit in the front seat as we waited and was mesmerized by the huge round radio speaker in the middle of the dash. The car was probably a Hydra-Matic, as I am pretty sure I would have remembered Mom shifting a manual. It was only a 10-12 year old car but it seemed to come from a different world. I have had a soft spot for these Pontiacs ever since.
I’m mesmerized by that speaker now! Even more so after I noticed it’s a clock too!
It looks more like a kitchen ceiling fan of the same vintage.
DL on a Dutch registration means it is imported (as are a couple of other letter series). I know because I imported my TR4 in 1994 and got a similar registration (lower numbers though).
I looked it up and the from the registration it says the following:
Date on the road: June 30, 1950
Date first registered in NL: August 30, 1995
Owner since: August 10, 2019
# of cilinders: 6
It also says it is a Pontiac Sliver Streak. Yes, Sliver instead of Silver. The admin had a sloppy day back in 1995 it seems.
Oooh, I wish I had thought of “Sliver Streak” when I wrote up a 48 Pontiac woody wagon some time back.
Reminds me of a great Pryor/Wilder movie. The Silver Streak. Partly filmed in Toronto.
I have an original 47 silver streak straight eight.i bought alittle while ago
The “date on the road” of June 30, 1950 is too early for this to be a 1951 model. I think it’s a 1950. The ‘51’s had a different side molding, with “Pontiac Eight” in script on the front doors for 8 cylinder models and just “Pontiac” for sixes. The ‘50 had “Silver Streak” in script in front of the doors, which this one has. What is puzzling is this one has the ‘51 front bumper, with the V shape under the medallion.
That explains the trouble I had dating it. The grille is clearly not a ’50, but the side trim is. A hybrid.
Ive always liked these fastback models from GM, as usual they didnt come here officially despite the popularity of American cars here supply was severely restricted getting any new car in that period required much jumping thru hoops.
Beautiful, stately car. Black and faded chrome is perfect.
Very nice. I prefer the same year Buick with its cleaner styling and OHV Fireball eight. Sure the Buick turbine transmission was smoother but the Hydramatic is clearly preferred for performance. Since I’m dreaming, I’ll take a Buick Special fastback with the 3 speed manual.
Good luck finding one of these, pictured is a 1951 Buick Super ‘Jetback’ Sedanet only 1,500 were built before the body style was phased out.
Having experienced the “acceleration” of a same year, no oil pressure/Splash Lubrication System six cylinder/Powerglide Chevy, first as a passenger and later as a driver, I would had gladly spent the slight extra money for a straight 8/Hydramatic Pontiac.
no oil pressure/Splash Lubrication System six cylinder/Powerglide Chevy,
You do know that this is an utter falsehood. And you’ve been repeating it for years here. It’s ok for you to have an irrational dislike for a certain car, brand or engine, but flat out lying about its objective aspects is not the way to engender respect for your opinions, and not really welcome.
“Utter Falsehood”??
Paul, surely you know all about the inadequate “Splash System” oil lubrication system of the 1930’s/1940’s and early 1950 Chevrolets from your extensive book reading experiences.
With a hot engine the oil pressure gauge barely blipped off the low end peg at curb idle. Any gas station attendant of the 1940’s/50’s/60’s was well acquainted with the “klunk-klunk-klunk” sound of a hot Chevy six cylinder engine of this time period.
The pre-Powerglide Chevys were inadequate for sustained highway speeds past 60 mph. Their low oil pressure “Splash System” with questionable bottom end lubrication would fry the engine’s bearings if the car was ran too fast/too long at highway speeds. Any mechanic familiar with this engine will agree.
The Powerglide equipped 6 cylinder Chevrolets had adequate full oil pressure; the stick shift models did not until 1954.
I have rode/driven/listened to many a Chevy six cylinder car from the 1940’s & 50’s as Chevys were the “car of choice” for most of my extended mid-west family and as a gas station attendant/mechanics helper. They were well built, comfortable cars in these time periods; but 50 mph was their maximum extended highway cruising speed. Smart Chevy drivers just stayed slow and took frequent rest stop breaks on road trips.
Although I seldom question your book knowledge of cars, and you and I do agree many times, I do believe that I have more “Hands On” and “Real World” knowledge and experience with American cars of the 1940’s/50’s/60’s.
I do not have time to go into a full rebuttal, but here’s the primary falsehood:
First you said:
Having experienced the “acceleration” of a same year, no oil pressure/Splash Lubrication System six cylinder/Powerglide Chevy,
And then you walked it back:
The Powerglide equipped 6 cylinder Chevrolets had adequate full oil pressure.
So what exactly did you experience? A Chevy that had a non-full pressurized system engine swapped into a PG car? Not very likely at all.
The problem is that your obviously false statement about driving a “no oil pressure” PG Chevy complete undermines your position about the alleged shortcomings of that engine, which are purely anecdotal and subjective, and not supported by facts and real-life experience by millions of these engines installed for decades in large trucks, military vehicles, hot rods, and just everyday cars.
I understand that some folks have very strong feelings about Chevy engines, sixes or eights, but the objective facts or evidence doesn’t support them. So they’re just what they are: subjective feelings and bias.
The Chevrolet splash oiler was as good as anything else of the era. Speeds were not fast enough in 1950 for it to be a problem. From my own experience having wrenched on a lot of cars from the era, Chevrolet motors didn’t require any more maintenance than other brands.
This is especially true of the Ford V-8 which had durability issues from day one.
The only motor of the era that could be seen as “better” than the Stovebolt would be Chrysler Spitfire Six. Yes, it was probably more durable but it was a flathead, so not as powerful or efficient as the Chevrolet motor.
Chevrolet first offered the Powerglide in 1950, I believe. It used the larger truck engine of 235 ci.
The 1953 Powerglide cars had a full pressure oil system. Standard shift cars still had the low pressure engines. As did the 1950-1952 cars.
As someone who was involved in rebuilding a couple of these 1946-1949 low pressure engines (non-powerglide)here’s a few “fun facts”.
The rod bearings were still babbitt. This is where the bearing material is bonded to the rod and bearing cap itself. Insert type bearings were not used on the rods.
The oil to lube these bearings was dipped/scooped from troughs attached to the oil pan.
The scoops were attached to the bottom of the rod caps.
At higher speeds the oil pressure increased and started flowing through oil nozzles, which then squirted directly into the scoops.
My neighbor (born in 1930) loved 1936-1950 Chevies.
He had all the needed alignment gages to set the scoops, troughs, and squirter nozzles to rebuild these engines.
Anyone who worked on these engines could hardly forget this system.
Also, Chevy was the probably the last in the U.S. to use babbitted bearings, and probably the oiling system as well.
By 1948 it was antiquated.
As to how well they handled 70mph speeds, I don’t know. My neighbor said the were comfortable at 50-55 and that was his max speed.
re: Hydramatic
Like many others of his generation (born 1925), my father was one of the people who did not care if the early Hydramatic transmissions made the car much slower. These were people who were just plain tired of having to shift a car. Near as I can remember of his history, his last car with a manual transmission was a 1952 Chevrolet, and he, like many of his ilk, never looked back.
0-60 times meant very little in 1950. It was more about torque for less shifting. The fact that buyer snapped up automatics as soon as they became available attests to that. It wasn’t until circa 1995 that an automatic was as fast as a manual transmission. Most simply didn’t care.
+1
The primary objective in engineering those early semi-automatic and automatic transmissions was to eliminate as much of the need to shift gears as possible. Performance times was completely a non-issue, hot-foot hot-rodders weren’t any more than a minor niche segment, none of the automakers cared about catering to them.
Other primary considerations were smoothness as much as possible and reliability of operation. Repairing automatic transmissions was viewed as costly, to be avoided if at all possible. Forcing those early automatics to perform like a stick shift was a quick way to send the car to the repair shop and a big bill.
> the end of the road for GM’s flirtations with streamlining
What’s the difference between “streamlined” and “aerodynamic”?
Streamlining is aesthetic; aerodynamics are functional.
But a streamlined car can have good aerodynamics.
But wasn’t the reason for aesthetic streamlining (like tilted-back windshields) good aerodynamics? I understand that looking aerodynamic was sometimes as important as actually being aerodynamic, but that’s true of some more recent cars too.
Streamlining looks like it should be aerodynamic (low drag). But details matter, and wheeled motor vehicles have lots of details. Those are hard to get right without modern knowledge and development tools, exc maybe by a million monkeys with a million windtunnels.
If a modern vehicle is less aerodynamic than it looks, it’s a styling decision, not a mistake of judgment from a lack of knowledge and development tools. A modern vehicle is more likely to be *more* aerodynamic than it appears, by finessing angles, radii, etc so airflow is ‘stretched’ without being disrupted. That type of development is practically impossible without modern knowledge and development tools.
Consumer Reports tested a 1950 Pontiac Chieftain 8 with Hydramatic in its August 1950 issue. Their time in the quarter mile was 19.9 seconds, contrasted to the overdrive Ford 6 (“ordinarily regarded as an outstanding performer”) at 20.5 seconds and the Chevrolet Powerglide at 20.3 seconds.
“On the mile-long 9% grade used in CU’s tests, the car accelerated from 30 to 40 mph in 6 seconds and from 30 to 50 mph in 13.5 seconds; terminal speed on the grade was 57.8 mph. (The figures are much better than, for instance, the Buick Special.) In this acceleration test all cars are driven the way they would be by a tourist coming suddenly on a hill at about 25 mph and then pressing the accelerator to the floor. As with all Hydramatic cars, most of the climbing in the Pontiac was done in the second and third of the four forward speeds.” By contrast, a 1950 Mercury with synchromesh tested at the same time took an agonizing 31 seconds to go from 30 to 50 on the grade, “about as well as the Chevrolet Powerglide,” and topped out at 54.7 mph.
They concluded that the Pontiac was “a well-balanced product with good basic durability….Its margin of superiority–chiefly in riding comfort–over the lower-priced cars has been cut sharply by the Chevrolet Powerglide, which is nearly $300 cheaper….In its own class, the Pontiac 8 has a wide performance advantage over the Dodge, compares well with the Buick Special, and offers better roadability, a better ride on rough (but not on smooth) roads and more generous seating in the rear than the Studebaker Commander. In front of its garish instrument panel…is one of the toughest engines in the trade. Under the seat is an excellent heater, and below that is a very well-designed chassis. All-round body dimensions are good if not super-spacious, re-sale value high, and service stations numerous. With Pontiac you’ll have to visit a lot of gas stations, but otherwise it’s a “Best Buy.”
Thanks for sharing that – it reaffirms what I have long believed about GM cars of that period: The competition might have been better in one or maybe two particular things, but the GM stuff was hard to beat for the all-around goodness of the package. It should be no wonder they were the king of the hill back then.
Interesting details, especially about the oft-maligned PG Chevy.
I’ve had my say; I’ve had my rejoinder.
Peace. Out.
🙂
Presumably they shifted the PG manually from low to high to get that acceleration, but I don’t have that issue.
Let’s not forget that $300 in 1951 is almost $3000 now.
Yeah, that was fairly serious money back then.
Thank you for presenting the details on this one. It may not be fast, but where it’s living now it won’t need that much hill climbing power!
This Pontiac is another old Yank that I felt compelled to draw.
Nice sketch!
My dad’s first new car was a ’50 Pontiac sedan. The Annapolis dealers gave “special” deals to the new USNA grads. I’m surprised he never told us about the hood ornament. It went to California and back before he traded for a much faster ’54 Olds, but it was fast enough for him to get 2 speeding tickets on the same day.
I distinctly remember riding in the back seat of one of these 2 door fastbacks when I was being car-pooled to nursery school. I would have been 3 years old in 1955. The car seemed old and slow at the time as my folks had a ’55 Olds 88 with a V8 and an automatic (powerglide? Hydramatic?). Loved that grey mouse fur interior.
’55 Olds would have had the last iteration of the first generation Hydramatic.
I find myself mesmerized by the Streamliner / Fleetline bodies of the early 50’s. I’m old enough to remember them on the road (a neighbour had an immaculate robin’s egg blue Chevrolet), and to a kid they looked very old fashioned next to the ‘new’ 3-box designs.
With the gradual demise of 3-box styling and the rise of the S/CUV they understandably look a little more contemporary, but they seem to have a design integrity that makes me just want to stare at them. 🙂
In my eyes, the extra length in the front end helps the visual balance of this car, as compared to the Chevy, but I’ve always preferred the dashboard design of the Chevy over the Pontiac.
Correct me if I’m wrong, Paul, but in 50/51, I believe the Pontiac was an A-body, shared with Chevy. Junior Olds and Buicks were B-bodies, and senior Buicks (and sometimes Olds) and Cadillacs were C-Bodies.
I wonder how these acceleration figures would change with modern automatics?
Edit: in 50/51 specifically, A-bodies were Chevy, Pontiac, and Olds 76/88 (50 only). B-Bodies were Olds 88 (51) & 98, Buick Special, and Cadillac Series 61. C-Bodies were Buick Super/Roadmaster and other Cadillacs, except the Series 75, which was kind of its own thing based on the C-Body.
You state that the Pontiac fastbacks used the GM B body but that’s not accurate. Pontiac and Chevrolet shared the GM A body and no other for 1949 through 1958.
Quite true. Fixed now. Thanks.